Wednesday
Sep082010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day
Sep 8, 2010 Quotes Budiansky again:
My three years at Nature left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one's opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning.
Reader Comments (12)
The active collaboration of Nature in climate alarmism over many years would be enough to give anyone such a jaded view of such 'scientists'.
The recent transfer to Nature of David Adam from the Guardian encourages me to think that the ignoble tradition will continue a little longer. See for example, using just part of the hallowed archives of this site alone, some quotes attributed to Mr Adam:
'I used to think sceptics were bad and mad but now the bad people (lobbyists for fossil fuel industries) had gone, leaving only the mad. '
'The meaning of sceptic is very specific. It’s not taxi drivers or people who don’t want to pay higher electricity bills. It’s someone who knows better and takes a contrary view for pathological reasons.'
'We can no longer call people deniers. We need a new term. Some people have suggested “climate creationists”.'
See: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/27/how-to-report-climate-change-after-climategate.html
And from the comments:
Steve2: 'David Adam is just a marvelous stereotype of the true believer, I believe he had some scientific training but he seems to have forgotten anything he may have learned, his philosophy is clearly stated here: sceptic = mad'
Frank S: 'This reported discussion provides insight into the dogmatic, and ruthless attitudes of these 'true believers' in the media. The one good thing that could come out of these shame-filled decades of climate alarmism is increased insight into how such scares take hold and are propagated by such as these 'journalists'.'
Jeremy: 'So David Allan of the Guardian indicates that he can't call people deniers because of holocaust association. Gee thank the maker you've got political correctness infused into your blood David, otherwise I might take offense. Then of course, he says someone suggested, "Climate Creationists"... which makes no gd sense at all. I take from this sentence that David Allen wants to insult people who think freely, but wants to be sure he doesn't do so in a way that might be politically distasteful for someone else who might be offended at references to the holocaust. His brain should be registered as a deadly singularity capable of removing all reason from a room.'
Peter B: 'By contrast, people like Fiona Harvey, David Adam and the rest - precisely because they are not "mere journalists" anymore and do have a claim to a formal scientitic education - are more likely to over-estimate their own competence in matters they don't truly understand.
Actually they *have* to be in denial. The moment that the whole CAGW thing collapses like the house of cards it is, those journalists who identified their own views and careers with it face professional oblivion and ridicule - perhaps not quite as bad as what faced the journalists who believed the "Hitler Diaries" hoax, but close.'
See:
Typo time. I corrected what I thought was a single letter typo in the quote from 'Jeremy' above, changing 'Allen' to 'Allan'. I should have changed it to 'Adam'. And I should have changed two of them and not just one.
I don't necessarily disagree with the comment from Budiansky that scientists hate opposition.
What he misses is that to become a scientist one must have drive, commitment, determination and belief in oneself. That strong belief in oneself results in the sure outcome that 'if they aren't for you, they are agin you'
Now I'm sure many gentle readers will nominate Saints of Science who are all humility and self-deprecating - avoiding the unavoidable that if they are Saints of Science they would not have got there if they changed their mind every 2 minutes to accomodate other's views.
The question of whether their self-belief has any basis is entirely different. I think you will find that many mediocre scientists achieve their level of incompetence (see Parkinson's Laws) and with not much else to do inflate their ego by vigorously asserting their rightness.
Jerry You are an idiot!! Why did you cite Parkinson rather than Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in The Peter Principle
Have you achived your level of incompetence yet again?
This is a bit misleading and unfair. Nature is in no way a typical scientific journal. The vast majority of scientists and scientific journals are not influenced in the slightest by their political opinions. Many of these scientists have a cynical attitude towards Nature - not just because it won't publish their papers :) - which favours sensationalism, trendy bandwaggon fields, and even political activism.
It might be of benefit to Budiansky and Montford to talk to some 'normal' scientists who work in non-controversial, non-political, non-headline-making areas. A major worry of climategate is that people will think, wrongly, that the behaviour revealed in those emails is normal for scientists. The behaviour of Jones et al is the exception, not the rule.
THANK YOU for introducing me to Budiansky, what a joy.
PaulM
You are quite right - the word "some" should be incorporated somewhere in that quote. That said, Budiansky's point is still very pertinent to discussions on this site.
PaulM
Spot on about many scientists' views on publications and publishing in Nature.
And been like that a while.
"confusing their political inclinations with objective fact"
And thus, the Church of Scientism is born... again.
Andrew
The issue goes beyond science, and touches everything that people believe is "scientific", including much that is associated with "socialism".
Basically since you don't believe their "science of politics", you're automatically "bad or mad". No other possibility is ever considered.
While PaulM is quite correct, the quotation given is nevertheless an accurate description of the pseudo scientists that populate Nature, RC, and climate "science".
It is a quotation worthy of remembering for future use, which, sadly, will be need.
Yes. There is something rotten in the state of climate science.